That would be fine. The 209 response code is not critical in this case.
Regarding the Prefers header draft... if there is enough interest, I
will revive it. I let it expire because there did not appear to be
enough interest in pursuing it.
- James
Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>> Yes, that looks good, but it is expired.
>>
>> However, the definition of 209 in PATCH still seems a little odd
>> without reference to that. Is 209 absolutely needed in PATCH? Could
>> that instead be moved to James document as a separate section
>> describing the interaction of Prefer and PATCH? Alternatively we
>> could progress James document at the same time as PATCH and
>> cross-reference - but maybe we don't want to delay PATCH.
>
> I wouldn't object to making the PATCH I-D even simpler, and to move
> 209 somewhere else.
>
> BR, Julian
>
>